Wednesday, September 12, 2012

On the top of the mountain...

The dogcraver is aware of the fact that
the dog can cause severe injury or death. However, he sees the dog as
the source of power, since he uses that energy to stay alive and to
constantly run away form his fear from within. The dog is useful to
him as the source of power and as the source of energy. He uses that
power to dominate the outside world and also uses the energy of the
dog to sustain the inner dynamic aka to stay alive.

Although he is aware of the potential
danger of his dog, he is proud of it, it makes him feel good cause it
makes him feel safe. He is the proud master of the situation, where
ever he shows up. This relationship with the threat leads to the
changes in the threat perception. The dogcraver is aware of the
threat but he is also aware of his ability to control it and that
feeling of control is actually the thing that makes him feel so good.
Or the notion of ability to control it. To put it simply, since he
sees everything as objects that either serve him or not, he gorges on
the RELATIONSHIP with the object but not with the object itself. His
interaction with the world is not personal cause he is locked inside
of that protective shell so the only way how he can communicate is
trough mediums, in this case the dogs.

Since he is the only one whom can
interpret the relationship his interpretation is the only valid one.
This means that if he doesn't see the dog as a threat, that dog is
not a threat cause he believes in the image of the dog that he
created and projected on to the dog. And that image always includes
the picture of the dog that knows that HE is the master. In his
perception the image of the dog is the only image that exists but as
soon as dog denies that image,aka it doesn't behave according to the
projected image of the dogcraver, the dogcraver immediately abandons
the dog, he cancels the relationship with the dog cause now the dog
is a threat to him and assumes the defensive position from the
general perspective, which is his understanding of how the society
sees dogs. And since society sees dogs as positive, his dog, the dog
becomes a dog. This transformation from the dog to a dog, gives the
dogcraver more space to manoeuvre since his defence is not connected
with the dog, his dog, yet it is an abstract, a dog, or the general
perception of the dog.

So if his dog, kills your pet cat and
you confront him with the fact that he is responsible for the dog's
behaviour and that the cat is dead cause he wasn't responsible, he
will automatically assume the defensive position which states that
dogs do that, dogs kill cats and that is natural. So your complaint
is irrelevant since it counters the very laws of the nature. Meaning
that you are the one whom doesn't see things right cause you oppose
the way how nature functions. If he is bolder he will than accuse you
for letting your cat out and that it is your irresponsibility that
lead to cat's death. Cause you know that dogs kill cats, so by
letting the cat out, you placed your pet in danger of being torn to
bits by dogs. At the end, it is irrelevant if his dog got the cat, if
it didn't some other dog would. So it is your fault for not taking
care of your cat and you are the one to be blamed for its death.

The truth is, however much simpler, the
truth is that the dogcraver doesn't give a fuck for cats, he doesn't
give a fuck for other smaller animals, for other human beings, for
your yard or for you. Everyone knows what the dog is and they are
obligated to respect that and keep away form the dog. If the dog gets
one of those, well it is nature and it is normal, so complaining on
that level is insane cause who would be so stupid to argue with the
laws of nature.

But if something happens to the
dogcraver dog, it is the violation not only the laws of the country,
it is the violation of the laws of the universe. Cause dogs are apex
predators, meaning that they are on top of things and since there are
no natural force, no natural predator that controls them, the dog's
demise is an act of abnormal,deviant and unnatural event. In other
words it is an anomaly or if you want to put it legally it is a
CRIME.

Dog can do what ever it wants, meaning
that the dogcraver can do what ever it wants but without any
consequences for that. Cause why there would be any consequences? The
dog is the apex predator, meaning that rarely there is an animal that
can endanger him, especially in the urban setting, so it cannot be
killed in the “natural” aka normal way. Itself can kill what ever
it wants to cause it is the apex predator, it is its right to kill
cause of it. The dogcraver loves animals and respects the nature,
meaning that if he prohibits his dog to behave in a natural way, he
is against the nature and natural laws, he violates the natural
setting. But since he is all for the nature, he can't and won't do
that, cause it is wrong. If hist dog kills another animal, well it is
the natural aka normal thing to happen so it shouldn't be seen as a
problem.

This connection natural is normal and
normal is natural is another insane mental construct of the
dogcraver. He firmly believes in nature cause in nature his dog is on
the top, which places him on the top and it is safe on the top. So
replace the nature with normality and you will get that it is normal
for him to be on the top. He is entitled to that place.

Total Pageviews

About Me

“One of the greatest mistakes, in my opinion, is to identify the pet movement with the ecological movement. The pet movement is an industry based commercial trend while the ecological movement is driven by the noble idea that goes beyond ourselves. The pet movement is equally destructive towards nature as the oil industry is yet it was able to hide its true nature behind pet animal. The pet animal is just another industrial product and has the connection with the nature as much as the oil tanker. It is my firm belief that the greatest danger for the ecological movement and nature itself, comes not from the heavy industries yet from the pet movement itself”.
Professor Hilder